@ T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate:
With great respect, I may clarify that the answer given by me was clearly based on the premise mentioned in the original query that “the bank” had refused to provide the handbook of procedure, and also on the premise that the bank had stated that it was a confidential document.
When the words “the bank” are used in the original query (and NOT the words “branch of the bank”), they would generally imply “the bank” as a whole. If the higher offices of the bank cooperate with police, then it cannot be said that “the bank” refused to provide the handbook. This is what a humble person like me with a little knowledge of law would understand. The answer is given in the context of the expressions used in the query.
Moreover, I had clearly mentioned that “If the bank does not cooperate, the police has sufficient powers…”. So, the second part of my statement would be operational ONLY IF “the bank” did not cooperate. Here again, “the bank” would mean the bank as a whole.
It may also be pointed out that in my reply, I had specifically mentioned that “…the stand of confidentiality cannot be said to be valid if that particular document is relevant and necessary for the investigation of the case …”. Thus, I had clearly mentioned that such handbook cannot be said to be confidential if it is required for the purposes of investigation into a criminal case.
Lastly, let me re-assure you with great respect that what I had written in the reply is on the basis also of my personal experience where the sections mentioned by me have been successfully used professionally.
Let me also re-assure the member who had asked the original question that the legal provisions quoted by me are FULLY applicable in the given circumstances.
Thus, it is clear that these legal provisions are to be used (as was clear from my first reply itself) in the extreme situation where it is presupposed that “the bank” has refused to cooperate in an ongoing investigation into a criminal case. If the bank had cooperated, it would remain a “simple” thing since in that case the bank would immediately provide its handbook for perusal by the police. But, by refusing to show its handbook by taking the stand of confidentiality, the bank has itself converted it into a “complicated thing” which then calls for proper exercise of the lawful powers vested in the police and the courts to take the investigation to its logical end.
Therefore, with great respect, let me submit humbly that it is not me who has converted the “simple” thing into a “complicated” thing, but it the bank itself which has done it by its wrongly advised conduct of refusing to provide the handbook.
I hope I have been able to clarify my answer. With regards.